This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 28, 2014.
Monster Hunter's Survival Guide
[edit]- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasKeep. Nomination withdrawn.Paradoctor (talk)21:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dwayne Johnson does not mention the project, neither does any other article.Paradoctor (talk)15:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I noticed. But right now there is no content whatsoever, which makes the redirects pointless. Otherwise, we could start maintaining oodles of redirects from potential articles to articles not explaining them.Paradoctor (talk)16:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to add content, just wait a bit. --Captain Assassin!«T ♦C ♦G»18:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- All fixed now. --Captain Assassin!«T ♦C ♦G»18:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retracting my nomination.Paradoctor (talk)21:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
2014 Grand Prix of Belgium
[edit]- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion waskeep. --BDD (talk)00:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect was created as a result of a misunderstanding that the naming of Grands Prix had been altered. This has been proven wrong, so this is no longer needed.Tvx1 (talk)13:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Similar redirects, added to nomination byUser:DH85868993
ones which still redirect to2014 Formula One season (because the corresponding individual race articles don't exist yet)
ones which originally redirected to2014 Formula One season but now redirect to corresponding individual race articles
Discussion:
- Delete all as unnecessary, or
- Keep all (becauseredirects are cheap) and redirect those which still redirect to2014 Formula One season to the relevant individual race report article, as those articles are created. If the outcome of this discussion is to keep the redirects, I am willing to do the retargeting for those race articles which don't exist yet, as they are created.
- DH85868993 (talk)22:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I fail to see why you would nominate "of Japan" and not2014 Japanese Grand Prix,2014 United States Grand Prix,2014 Singapore Grand Prix,2014 Italian Grand Prix,2014 Brazilian Grand Prix. If they are too far in advance to receive a redirect, then these forms should also be deleted. There's no other reason I can see for deleting it, other than it'sWP:CRYSTAL. Why would synonymous terms be deleted, when they are used in the press? Why are we trying to make it hard to find our articles? --65.94.169.222 (talk)03:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all:WP:CRYSTAL does not apply here, because the events are rather certain to happen. Someone should oversee retargetting of redirects currently pointing to2014 Formula One season to appropriate pages after they are created. Creating such redirects in advance isvery bad practice, but now that we have a pattern, their deletion would only needlessly waste storage on Wikipedia servers. —Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track)07:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I am willing to oversee retargetting of redirects currently pointing to2014 Formula One season to appropriate pages after they are created.DH85868993 (talk)08:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete All These redirects are unnecessary. This way of naming F1 Grands Prix isn't used anywhere. They were created out of the mistaken belief by one user that the official naming of such races had changed, which was proven wrong. They were supposed to be expanded to full articles once the races had actually taken place, but that never happened since this way of naming them turned out to be wrong. No other season articles have redirects to them with similar naming, so there is really no reason to keep only 2014 ones. You can find an overview of the discussion on the naming of the raceshere. This isn't an issue of to soon or crystal by any means.Tvx1 (talk)09:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Every article should have a redirect from "Year GP of X" to "Year X-ian GP" forms, since they are used in the world at large. They are viable search terms. They aid navigation. Redirects are not restricted to official names (even article titles are not restricted to official names) --65.94.169.222 (talk)03:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No they shouldn't. None of the articles for the preceding 64 season's race reports have such redirects leading to them and that works just fine. The redirects weren't even created with the purpose of being redirects. They were created with the purpose of evolving into full race report articles. That never happened because the user who created them was wrong. Furthermore the statistics clearly point out that they are not being used at all! They are clearly not as indispensable as you claim them to be.Tvx1 (talk)19:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You should take a look at the stats. Except for the Belgian one, none of them has actually been used.Tvx1 (talk)12:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment2014 Belgian Grand Prix has now been converted to an article, so2014 Grand Prix of Belgium could be retargeted to there instead of2014 Formula One season, but I wasn't sure whether it was appropriate to do that while this discussion was still ongoing.DH85868993 (talk)00:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I retargetted it, we should put the interests of (potential) users of the redirect first.Siuenti (talk)18:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, well-formed and plausible search terms so even with no hits these are harmless andWP:CHEAP applies.Siuenti (talk)18:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per others. These are quite legitimate redirects, with potential both as search terms and as linking targets. —This, that andthe other (talk)09:32, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – perfectly plausible search terms, particularly for non-British readers.Bretonbanquet (talk)21:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Seventh-day Adventist Church
[edit]- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasdelete. --BDD (talk)13:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The activities of this organization are not limited to any particular region, so it has no specific ties to any language. These redirects should be deleted perWP:NOTDICT andWP:FORRED (for essay hatersWP:R#DELETE criterion 8). —Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track)11:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasdelete.JohnCD (talk)14:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I speak Chinese and this sounds like a derogatory termTheChampionMan123404:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Demographics of Tibet (disambiguation)
[edit]- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasdelete. --BDD (talk)13:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a link to a disambiguation page.TheChampionMan123404:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Political career of Julius Caesar
[edit]- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion waskeep and refine target. Undoubtedly the current target doesn't do the job and needs refining. However, the case for deletion has not been made. The cited ground isWP:REDLINK. However,WP:REDYES cautions that "The topic may well be covered in a section of another article" and implies that a red link would then be inappropriate. It has been pointed up by Dmitrij D. Czarkoff, that this is the case here. NAC.The Whispering Wind (talk)03:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:REDLINKTheChampionMan123402:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasdelete.JohnCD (talk)14:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not especially FrenchTheChampionMan123401:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
